describe_filter

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not say this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup, does not describe the shape of what comes back (parameter names, types, defaults), and does not say how an unknown filter name is handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no redundant wording. It is tight, but tightness here borders on under-specification given the schema documentation gaps.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, with one parameter and no output schema, and the description does convey the essential contract: return defaults so the agent can construct an apply_filter call. The missing pieces, where `name` comes from and what the returned structure looks like, are noticeable but small for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single required parameter `name` has no description in the schema. The description only hints that it identifies 'a filter'; it adds no format, source, or validity information beyond that, so the agent is left guessing what to supply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource, a filter's default parameters, and frames the tool as introspection aimed at apply_filter. An agent can distinguish it from apply_filter and list_filters, though it never states the retrieval verb explicitly or that the result is keyed by filter name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case, finding out which params apply_filter accepts, so it is clearly upstream of apply_filter. It never says when not to call it, and it does not tell the agent where the required `name` value comes from (presumably list_filters), leaving a real step to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.